Opinion
Civil Action 1:21-00025
08-31-2023
TERE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. K. WIMBUSH, et al., Defendants.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Omar J. Aboulhosn United States Magistrate Judge
On January 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs and his Amended Complaint in this matter claiming entitlement to relief pursuant to constitutional and civil rights pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 24 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). (Document Nos. 4 and 5.) In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff names the following as Defendants: (1) K. Wimbush, Captain at FCI McDowell; and (2) C. Maruka, Warden at FCI McDowell. (Document No. 5, pp. 2 - 3.) Plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated based on the following:
By Order entered on January 12, 2021, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint naming individual defendants and stating specific facts as to how each defendant violated his constitutional rights. (Document No. 3.) The undersigned specifically notified Plaintiff that his Amended Complaint would supersede his original letter-form Complaint (Document No. 1). (Id.)
Because Plaintiff is acting pro se, the documents which he has filed in this case are held to a less stringent standard than if they were prepared by a lawyer and therefore, they are construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).
On Dec. 24th somebody with COVID was let out with us and 70 people, including me, caught it. We haven't been given any medication to treat it. The 1st lockdown here we went over 3 days with no hot meal; the whole month of December and most of January we were only given one hot meal a day; copouts are rarely answered; commissary rarely runs; when we ask for BP-8s, we never get them; and we rarely get to use the phone. We are pretty much getting ignored by this whole
institution. We all have written K. Wimbush, the Captain, and this pretty much took place between Dec. 4th to the 24th.(Id., p. 5.) As relief, Plaintiff requests monetary damages. (Id., p. 6.)
THE STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the Court is required to screen each case in which a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, and must dismiss the case if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a similar screening is conducted where a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. This screening is done prior to consideration of an Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs, and notwithstanding the payment of any filing fee. On screening, the Court must recommend dismissal of the case if the complaint is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A “frivolous” complaint is one which is based upon an indisputably meritless legal theory. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992). A “frivolous” claim lacks “an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831 - 32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id., 490 U.S. at 327, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact when it describes “fantastic or delusional scenarios.” Id., 490 U.S. at 327 - 328, 109 S.Ct. at 1833. A complaint therefore fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted factually when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. With these standards in mind, the Court will assess Plaintiff's allegations in view of applicable law.
This Court is required to liberally construe pro se documents, holding them to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (1978). Liberal construction, however, “does not require courts to construct arguments or theories for a pro se plaintiff because this would place a court in the improper role of an advocate seeking out the strongest arguments and most successful strategies for a party.” Miller v. Jack, 2007 WL 2050409, at * 3 (N.D.W.Va. 2007)(citing Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.1978)). Further, liberal construction does not require the “courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). In other words, a court may not construct legal argument for a plaintiff. Small v. Endicott, 998 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1993). Finally, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts which set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Department of Social Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.1990)). Where a pro se Complaint can be remedied by an amendment, however, the District Court may not dismiss the Complaint with prejudice, but must permit the amendment. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 34, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1734, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); also see Goode v. Central Va. Legal Aide Society, Inc., 807 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2015).
DISCUSSION
A Bivens action is a judicially created damages remedy which is designed to vindicate violations of constitutional rights by federal actors. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 395 -97, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971); See also Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980)(extending Bivens to Eighth Amendment claims); Davis v. Passman, 442 U.S. 228, 239 n. 18, 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2274 n. 18, 60 L.Ed.2d 846 (1979)(extending Bivens to allow citizen's recovery of damages resulting from a federal agent's violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.) A Bivens action is the federal counterpart of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. An action for money damages may be brought against federal agents acting under the color of their authority for injuries caused by their unconstitutional conduct. Proof of causation between the official's conduct and the alleged injury is necessary for there to be liability. A plaintiff asserting a claim under Bivens must show the violation of a valid constitutional right by a person acting under color of federal law. However, Bivens claims are not actionable against the United States, federal agencies, or public officials acting in their official capacities. See FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994); Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991); Reingold v. Evers, 187 F.3d 348, 355 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1999).
1. Administrative Remedy Process:
To the extent Plaintiff is alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by rendering the administrative remedy process unavailable by failing to provide forms or a response to his administrative requests, Plaintiff's claim is without merit. (Document No. 4.) Federal inmates have no constitutional right to participate in the BOP's administrative grievance proceedings. See Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1022, 115 S.Ct. 1371, 131 L.Ed.2d 227 (1994); also see Booker v. South Carolina Dept. of Corrections, 855 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2017)(“Adams establishes a clear rule: inmates have no constitutional entitlement or due process interest in access to a grievance procedure.”); Flick v. Alba, 932 F.2d 728, 729 (8th Cir. 1991)(“[T]he federal regulations providing for an administrative remedy procedure do not in and of themselves create a liberty interest in access to that procedure. When the claim underlying the administrative grievance involves a constitutional right, the prisoner's right to petition the government for redress is the right of access to the courts, which is not compromised by the prison's refusal to entertain his grievance.”) A BOP employee's refusal to respond to an inmate's administrative complaint, or conduct that otherwise prevents an inmate from pursuing such complaints through the administrative remedy process, making the process unavailable, is not actionable under Bivens. Rather, the legal consequence of conduct which makes the administrative remedy process unavailable to inmates is that the door to federal Court is open to proceedings on the merits of their claims without requiring their exhaustion of administrative remedies. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's claim that Defendants violated his constitutional rights by rendering the BOP's Administrative Remedy process unavailable is without merit. Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully recommends that the above claim be dismissed.
2. Eighth Amendment:
As a general matter, punishments prohibited under the Eighth Amendment include those that “involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976)(quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). “It not only outlaws excessive sentences but also protects inmates from inhumane treatment and conditions while imprisoned.” Williams v. Benjamin, 77 F.3d 756, 761 (4th Cir. 1996). Under the Eighth Amendment, sentenced prisoners are entitled to “adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety.” Wolfish v. Levi, 573 F.2d 118, 125 (2d Cir. 1978), rev'd on other grounds, Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Thus, sentenced prisoners are entitled to reasonable protection from harm at the hands of fellow inmates and prison officials under the Eighth Amendment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832-34, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1976-77, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 102, 78 S.Ct. 590, 598-99, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 (1958); Woodhous v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 487 F.2d 889, 890 (4th Cir. 1973). Inmates' claims, therefore, that prison officials disregarded specific known risks to their health or safety are analyzed under the deliberate indifference standard of the Eighth Amendment. See Pressly v. Hutto, 816 F.2d 977, 979 (4th Cir. 1987); Moore v. Winebrenner, 927 F.2d 1312, 1316 (4th Cir. 1991) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 828, 112 S.Ct. 97, 116 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991)(Stating that supervisory liability may be imposed where prison supervisors “obdurately,” “wantonly,” or “with deliberate indifference” fail to address a known pervasive risk of harm to an inmate's health or safety). To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment in the context of a challenge to conditions of confinement, an inmate must allege (1) a “sufficiently serious” deprivation under an objective standard and (2) that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the inmate's health and safety under a subjective standard. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 - 99, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2323 - 2325, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991); also see King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 218 (4th Cir. 2016)(quoting Strickler v. Waters, 989 F.2d 1375, 1379 (4th Cir. 1993))(“[T]o make out a prima facie case that prison conditions violate the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must show both ‘(1) a serious deprivation of a basic human need; and (2) deliberate indifference to prison conditions on the part of prison officials.'”); Iko v. Shreve, 535 F.3d 225, 239 (4th Cir. 2008)(explaining that the above requirements “spring from the text of the amendment itself; absent intentionality, a condition imposed upon an inmate cannot properly be called ‘punishment,' and absent severity, a punishment cannot be called ‘cruel and unusual.'”) To satisfy the objective component, Plaintiff must show that the challenged condition caused or constituted an extreme deprivation. De'Lonta v. Angelone, 330 F.3d 630, 634 (4th Cir. 2003). To demonstrate an “extreme deprivation,” a plaintiff “must allege a serious or significant physical or emotional injury resulting from the challenged conditions or demonstrate a substantial risk of such serious harm resulting from [his] exposure to the challenged conditions.” Odom v. South Caroline Dept. of Corrections, 349 F.3d 765, 770 (4th Cir. 2003); also see Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. at 298, 111 S.Ct. at 2321(A sufficiently serious deprivation occurs when “a prison official's act or omission . . . result[s] in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities.”); White v. Gregory, 1 F.3d 267, 269 (4th Cir. 1991)(“In Strickler, we held that a prisoner must suffer ‘serious or significant physical or mental injury' in order to be ‘subjected to cruel and unusual punishment within the meaning of the' Eighth Amendment.”) To satisfy the subjective component, Plaintiff must demonstrate a “deliberate indifference” to his health and safety by defendants. In particular, Plaintiff must establish that each Defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, supra, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. at 1979. Plaintiff in this case must therefore allege and establish that each Defendant was aware of the excessive risk to Plaintiff's health or safety and each Defendant disregarded that risk.
(a) Conditions of Confinement:
Plaintiff appears to contend that he was subjected to unconstitutional conditions of confinement because he was denied hot meals. (Document No. 4.) Specifically, Plaintiff states he was denied hot meals for three days straight during the “first lockdown” and for the whole month of December. (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff complains he only received one hot meal a day for the month of January. (Id.) As stated above, prisoners are entitled to “adequate food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care and personal safety.” Wolfish, 573 F.2d at 125. In Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 111 S.Ct. 2321, 2327, 115 L.Ed.2d 271 (1991), the Supreme Court held that “some conditions of confinement may establish an Eighth Amendment violation ‘in combination' when each would not do so alone, but only when they have a mutually enforcing effect that produces the deprivation of a single, identifiable human need such as food, warmth, or exercise-for example, a low cell temperature at night combined with a failure to issue blankets.” Plaintiff's complaint of being denied “hot meals” is insufficient to state a constitutional violation. See also Hadley v. Peters, 70 F.3d 117 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1111, 116 S.Ct. 1333, 134 L.Ed.2d 484 (1996)(“Prisons are not required to provide, and prisoner cannot expect, the services of a good hotel.”). There is no allegation that Plaintiff suffered any specific injury or was deprived of an identifiable human need. Petitioner does not allege he was denied food, he merely complains that he was denied “hot meals.” Thus, Plaintiff's allegations do not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Lockamy v. Rodriguez, 402 Fed.Appx. 950, 951 (5th Cir. 2010)(absent an allegation of an injury as a result of missing meals, the deprivation of six meals during a 54 hour period was insufficient to state a claim); Cunningham v. Jones, 667 F.2d 565, 566 (6th Cir. 1982)(inmate's Eighth Amendment rights were not violated when he was served only one meal a day for 15 consecutive days were defendants demonstrated that the one meal furnished was sufficient caloric content to maintain normal health for the 15 days involved); Laufgas v. Speziale, 263 Fed.Appx. 192, 198 (3rd Cir. 2008)(“While prisoners are guaranteed a nutritionally adequate diet under the Eighth Amendment, there is no constitutional right to hot meals.”); Evans v. Jabe, 2014 WL 202023, * 6 (E.D.Va. Jan. 17, 2014)(finding inmate failed to state a claim where he complained for an incomplete or tardy breakfast on six occasions and there was no evidence of an injury). The condition of confinement complained of by Plaintiff amounts to nothing more than a “routine discomfort [that] is part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Strickler, 989 F.2d at 1380. The Eighth Amendment “does not mandate comfortable prisons.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. at 349, 101 S.Ct. at 2400. “To the extent . . . conditions are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society.” Id. at 347, 101 S.Ct. 2392; Shakka v. Smith, 71 F.3d 162, 166 (4th Cir. 1995)(citing Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 9, 112 S.Ct. 995, 117 L.Ed.2d 156 (1992)); Lopez v. Robinson, 914 F.2d 486, 490 (4th Cir. 1990). Therefore, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for which relief can be granted.
(b) Deliberate Indifference Regarding Medical Care:
In his Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that he contracted COVID and was not provided any medication at treatment. (Document No. 4.) In order to maintain and prevail upon an Eighth Amendment claim, Plaintiff must first allege and eventually establish a “sufficiently serious” deprivation of adequate medical care and resulting “serious or significant physical or mental injury.” Second, to establish the subjective component of deliberate indifference, Plaintiff must allege and prove each defendant's consciousness of the risk of harm to him. See Farmer, supra, 511 U.S. at 840, 114 S.Ct. at 1980. In particular, Plaintiff must establish that each Defendant “knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety; the official must both be aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Farmer, supra, 511 U.S. at 837, 114 S.Ct. at 1979. Plaintiff in this case must therefore allege and establish that each Defendant was aware that he was receiving constitutionally inadequate medical care and disregarded the serious physical consequences. Plaintiff's allegations, however, do not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. There is no allegation or indication that Plaintiff suffered from any COVID related symptoms that required medical treatment. Additionally, there is no allegation or indication that prison officials knew of and disregarded Plaintiff's need for medical treatment. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint does not present a claim of constitutional magnitude for which relief can be granted.
3. Due Process Claims:
The Fifth Amendment protects against deprivations of life, liberty, or property by the federal government. See U.S. Const. amend. V. In order to prevail on a due process claim, a plaintiff must show that the government has interfered with a protected liberty or property interest and that the procedures that led to the deprivation were constitutionally sufficient. Thus, plaintiff must first demonstrate that he had a protected liberty interest. The fact of conviction and imprisonment implies the inmate's transfer of his liberty to prison officials, who in their broad discretion, administer his sentence. Gaston v. Taylor, 946 F.2d 340, 343 (4th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, “confinement to prison does not strip a prisoner of all liberty interests.” Id. (emphasis added) To determine whether an inmate retains a certain liberty interest, the Court must look to the nature of the claimed interest and determine whether the Due Process Clause applies. See Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705-06, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). An inmate holds a protectable right in those interests to which he has a legitimate claim of entitlement. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103-04, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979)(quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2709). In Gaston v. Taylor, the Fourth Circuit determined that an inmate possesses a claim of entitlement in those interests “which were not taken away, expressly or by implication, in the original sentence to confinement.” Id. at 343. Such interests, however,
will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995)(citations omitted). Consequently, to establish a deprivation of a liberty interest with respect to RDAP, Plaintiff must show either (1) that he has a legitimate entitlement to admission in RDAP or in early release or (2) that the denial thereof creates an atypical and significant hardship on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. at 2299-2300.
To the extent Plaintiff alleges a liberty interest in retaining his telephone and commissary privileges, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's claim is without merit. The denial of privileges is a matter clearly contemplated by Plaintiff's original sentence. See Gaston, 946 F.2d at 343(To safely and efficiently run the prison, prison officials maintain broad discretion over an inmate's “location, variations of daily routines, changes in conditions of confinement (including administrative segregation), and the denial of privileges”); Hatch v. District of Columbia, 184 F.3d. 846, 855 (D.C. Cir. 1999)(stating that “the transfer of an inmate to less amenable and more restrictive quarter for nonpunitive reasons is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence”); and Gholson v. Murry, 953 F.Supp. 709, 716 (E.D.Va. 1997)(finding that the denial of work opportunities and certain education programs did not impose an atypical and significant hardship on inmates placed in segregation in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life). Furthermore, it is well established that an inmate has no absolute right to commissary or telephone privileges. See Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 109, S.Ct. 1904, 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989)(“The denial of prison access to a particular visitor is well within the terms of confinement ordinarily contemplated by a prison sentence and therefore is not independently protected by the Due Process Clause.”); Smith v. Roper, 12 Fed.Appx. 393, 396 (7th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1093, 122 S.Ct. 839, 151 L.Ed.2d 718 (2002)(“In light of Sandin, the deprivations that Smith suffered as a result of the disciplinary proceedings - namely, 22 days in segregation, a six-month loss of privileges associated with his demotion to C class, and six days without phone privileges - do not implicate a liberty interest.”); Freitas v. Ault, 109 F.3d 1335, 1337-38 (8th Cir. 1997)(finding that an involuntary transfer to a 11 higher-security facility and loss of work and phone privileges did not constitute atypical and significant hardship); Alkebulanyahh v. Ozmint, 2009 WL 2043912, *9 (D.S.C. July 13, 2009), affd, 358 Fed.Appx. 431 (4th Cir. 2009)(“[P]rison visitation does not implicate the standard set forth in Sandin.”); Principio v. McGinnis, 2007 WL 2344872, * 2 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2007)(finding that “60 days of keeplock with loss of telephone, packages, recreation and conjugal visits,” was not an atypical or significant hardship); Richardson v. Johnson, 2001 WL 360843, * 1 n. 1 (N.D.Tex. April 5, 2001)(finding that phone-privilege restrictions, like commissary and recreation restrictions, do not impose a significant or atypical hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life); James v. Odom, 2000 WL 1136563 *5 (S.D.Ala. May 30, 2000)(finding a 45-day restriction on inmate's “store, phone, and visiting privileges” did not constituted an atypical or significant hardship). Accordingly, to the extent that Plaintiff is claiming his liberty interest in retaining telephone and commissary privileges were violated, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff's claim is without merit.
PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned therefore respectfully PROPOSES that the District Court confirm and accept the foregoing findings and RECOMMENDS that the District Court DENY Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs (Document Nos. 5 and 7), DISMISS Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (Document No. 4) and remove this matter from the Court's docket.
The Plaintiff is hereby notified that this “Proposed Findings and Recommendation” is hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable United States District Judge David A. Faber. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Rule 6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days i o (filing of objections) and three (3) days (if received by mail) from the date of filing of this Findings and Recommendation within which to file with the Clerk of this Court specific written objections identifying the portions of the Findings and Recommendation to which objection is made and the basis of such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted for good cause.
Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be served on opposing parties, District Judge Faber and this Magistrate Judge.
The Clerk is requested to send a copy of this Proposed Findings and Recommendation to Plaintiff, who is acting pro se.